HC ends 16-year dispute: No right to fell trees on forest land despite ownership  

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has settled a 16-year-old legal controversy by holding that even if individuals are lawful owners of land classified as protected forest, they cannot fell trees on such land due to overriding environmental concerns and statutory prohibitions.

The judgment is significant as it underscores the primacy of environmental protection laws, specifically Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The dispute began in 2008 when plaintiffs, who claimed to own land marked as protected forest, asked the court to restrain forest authorities from preventing the cutting of eucalyptus (safeda) trees on the land.

The trial court dismissed their suit, and the decision was upheld by the first appellate court later that year. The plaintiffs then approached the high court through a regular second appeal, challenging the concurrent findings.

Upholding the rulings of the lower courts, the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma ruled that the plaintiffs could not be permitted to fell the trees even if it was assumed that they were owners of the suit land as it would have an imminent cascading ill-effect on the environment and its preservation.

The substantial question of law before the Bench was whether the trees planted on the land of the plaintiffs could be permitted to be felled in terms of Section 35 of the Forest Act, 1927, and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The court clarified that the restrictions on tree-felling remained in force once an area was declared forest under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, until a fresh notification under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act was issued, allowing de-reservation.

The Bench also made it clear that private rights could not override the statutory provisions aimed at preserving ecological balance.

The Bench observed that environmental conservation would take precedence over ownership claims on forest land as the statutory framework governing forest conservation was designed to prevent unregulated deforestation, which could lead to environmental degradation.

Dismissing the appeal, the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs might have a fresh cause of action if a notification under Section 2 of the 1980 Act was issued to de-reserve the protected forest. In such a scenario, they would have the liberty to approach the court again.